Demirtas v. Larose et al

1
25-cv-3295-AGS-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Idris DEMIRTAS,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3295-AGS-BJW
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
Petitioner challenges his immigration detention. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
HABEAS SCREENING
Petitioner Idris Demirtas need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable
to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b)
(permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant
federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss
v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition
has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary
dismissal[.]” Id.
Demirtas, a “citizen of Turkey,” “fled” “Turkey due to threats and physical violence
against him for not being a member of the Muslim faith.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Demirtas “entered
the United States on December 6, 2022” to “seek asylum” and “was released on parole on
December 15, 2022.” (Id. at 2–3.) He “was given a five[-]year work permit dated
December 22, 2022.” (Id. at 3.) In “May 2025,” Demirtas “received a letter dismissing his
asylum” “without an interview.” (Id. at 6.) Demirtas then began “the process for obtaining
legal residency,” because he is married to a U.S. citizen. On “November 19, 2025,”
Demirtas’s immigration attorney received “a call-in letter by ICE” for Demirtas to “appear”
Case 3:25-cv-03295-AGS-BJW Document 2 Filed 11/28/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3295-AGS-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for an “interview” “less than 16 hours later.” (Id.) When he “appeared at the interview,”
Demirtas “was then immediately taken into custody unlawfully without notice and an
opportunity to be heard.” (Id.)
This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Similar cases
across California have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the merits” or have
resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Federico Navarro Perez v. Christopher LaRose,
et al., No. 3:25-cv-02620-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3171742, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025)
(granting habeas petition for “Guatemalan national” who received “a mass email . . . stating
that his parole would be terminated,” attended a “required immigration court hearing,” and
was “detained by … ICE”); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1089, 1091, 1096 (E.D.
Cal. 2025) (granting habeas and preliminary injunction for “noncitizen” who had been
paroled and was then “taken into custody during a standard check-in at [an] ICE office”);
Salazar v. Casey, No. 3:25-cv-2784-JLS-VET, 2025 WL 3063629, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov.
3, 2025) (granting habeas for a “national of Venezuela” who, when “responding to a ‘call-
in letter’ from ICE” “was arrested” and re-detained”).
CONCLUSION
By 	December 3, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by
petitioner must be filed by December 8, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the
petition on December 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Dated: November 28, 2025
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03295-AGS-BJW Document 2 Filed 11/28/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2